MS. INS. MALHOTRA versus DR. A. KRIPLANI & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1062 · Decided: 24-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S .C.R. 1062 
A 
MS. INS. MALHOTRA 
v 
DR. A. KRIPLANI & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2001 
B 
MARCH 24, 2009 
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND 8. SUDERSHAN 
REDDY, JJ) 
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: 
.. 
·-
c 
Deficiency in service - Medical negligence - Patient with 
renal failure admitted in hospital - Death of patient under 
treatment in hospital - Comp/amt against doctors and hospital 
- Dismissed by National Commission - HELD.· The record 
shows the unanimous decision of the State Medical CouncH 
D that there was no negligence on the part of medical 
practitioners - Besides, the relative of patient had refused 
Haemodia/ysis and Pneumothorax on her risk - The record 
shows that before the patient was brought to hospital, renal 
failure had already taken place - The allegations made in the 
E complaint do not make out a case of negligence or deficiency 
in service on the part of the doctors and the Hospital - There 
is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by 
Commission warranting any interference in appeal. 
On 14.7.1989, the sister of the complainant-appellant 
F was admitted in respondent no. 7-Hospital. She died on 
20.8.1989. In the complaint before the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, it was alleged that the 
patient died due to the negligence of the respondent-
doctors. The respondents filed their written statements. 
G The appellant could not lead evidence of any expert doctor 
t 
in support of her complaint and stated before the 
Commission that no expert doctor was willing to give any 
opinion against the respondent-doctors and the hospital. 
The counsel for the respondents stated before the 
H 
1062 
MS. INS. MALHOTRA V. DR. A. KR/PLAN/ & ORS. 
1063 
Commission that they did not intend to cross-examine the A 
. _., 
appellant nor did any of them appear in support of his/ 
. her defence as pleaded in the written statements. On 
· consid
1eration of the material on ri:lcord, the National 
Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the 
complainant was not able to establish a case of medical B 
negligence against the respondents. Aggrieved, the 
complainant filed the appeal. 
} 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Dealing with a case of medical negligence c 
needs a deeper understanding of the practical side of 
medicine. The purpose of holding a professional liable 
for his act or omission, if negligent, is to make life safer 
and to eliminate the possibility of recurrence of negligence 
in future.[para 18.1] [1081-A-B] 
D 
.. • 
1.2 Negligence in the context of the medical 
profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a 
difference. A case of occupational negligence is different 
from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, 
an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of E 
negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long 
as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical 
profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for 
negligence merely because a better alternative course or 
method of treatment was also available or simply because F 
a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or 
resort to that practice or procedure which the accused 
followed. [para 18.2) [1081-C-F] 
Bo/am vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee 
G 
-
-+ 
(1957) 2All ER 118-referred to. 
1.3 In tort, it is enough for the defendant to show that 
the standard of care and the skill attained was that of the 
ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an 
ordinary degree of professional skill. The fact that a H 
1064 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009) 4 S.C.R. 
A defendant charged with negligence acted in accord with 
the general and approved practice is enough to clear him 
.. 
I 
of the charge. Three things are pertinent to be noted. 
Firstly, the standard of care, when assessing the practice 
as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available 
B at the time (of the incident), and not at the date of trial. 
Secondly, when the charge of negligence arises out of 
failure to use some particular equipment, the charge 
would fail if the equipment was not generally available at 
that point of time (that is, the time of the incident) on which 
c it is suggested as should have been used. Thirdly, when 
it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to 
be seen is whether those precautions were taken which 
a men of ordinary experience has found to be sufficient; 
a failure to use special or extraordinary precaution

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.